State ex rel. Hay v. Industrial Commission

555 N.E.2d 965, 52 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 260
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 27, 1990·No. No. 89-235·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are again asked to review the commission’s order for “some evidence” pursuant to State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E. 2d 036. Confining our examination to the evidence cited in the commission’s order, we find no evidence to support its decision.

Dr. Combs’ September 25, 1984 and September 30, 1986 reports attribute appellee’s disability exclusively to his 1975 claim. Similarly, Dr. Katz acknowledges all the allowed conditions, but bases his conclusion essentially on symptoms and restrictions that relate to the later injury.

We reject the suggestion that the prior thirty-five-percent permanent partial disability award in the 1971 claim is some evidence supporting the commission’s allocation. As we have often stated, a permanent total disability is not measured numerically but is instead based on the claimant’s ability to engage in sustained remunerative employment. State, ex rel. Jennings, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 101, 1 OBR 135, 438 N.E. 2d 420.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State ex rel. Hay v. Industrial Commission, 555 N.E.2d 965, 52 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 260 (Ohio 1990).

555 N.E.2d 965 (State ex rel. Hay v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related